Comments on: Missing the Forest for the Trees

By: Charles Bird

Charles Bird — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:38:51 +0000

U.S. casualties aren't necessarily a measure of progress in Iraq, but civilian casualties most definitely are. By excluding that metric, Alex, your post is misleading. The October numbers for civilian casualties are projected to be lower September's already low numbers, barring some spectacular al Qaeda bombing. And political progress is being made, just not on the national stage.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:06:05 +0000

The casualties drop was a front page story in my local paper today. It seems that Bush supporters, without a single accomplishment to talk about, have nothing left to do but whine at high volumes...

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:27:06 +0000

Sorry about that, Alex. Didn't read the byline closely enough.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:23:47 +0000

at a cost of $8 billion a month, i will think this is significant when we bring 90% of our folks back - this won't happen for a long, long time b/c REAL progress is not being made - the body count is just one aspect of success

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:09:10 +0000

News is News and the MSM won't report the "Good News"

Sure they will, but there is a difference between good news and not news. People not dying is not "good news", it is the expected norm. The MSM isn't reporting about how much of California is _not_ on fire, do you have a problem with that too? Now, if you want to argue that a continued stream of flag-draped coffins should be considered the norm and only changes to that are worth mentioning, go right ahead, but I wouldn't recommend doing it in front of veterans.

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:08:07 +0000

And there has been Iraqi political reconciliation, just not the way we imagined.

I'm not sure that I consider the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad to be "political reconciliation." Or did you have something else in mind?

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:06:02 +0000

Sure, both coalition and Iraqi deaths may be lower this month than some other months. But I don't see that cheering me up if I am an American who was just told that my son was killed in Iraq or an Iraqi who continues to face realities I can barely imagine. Seems to me that people who casually call these reports "good news" are treading toward the kind of chicken-hawk aloofness that got us into this mess in the first place. I don't mean that as a critique of anyone here, but maybe those of us in armchairs should think more about the real life implications here before saying anything in Iraq can be considered good news. A lot of people who don't know it yet will have their lives shattered forever next week by events in Iraq. On October 24, 2057, old men in VA hospitals who haven't known who they are since 2007 will be swallowing meds for dozens of crippling ailments, middle-age accountants will be in ugly divorces stemming from a messed up family live in which they lost a parent they don't remember, and the US will have such enormous debts we will have much higher taxes and lesser services than we do today. Forgive me if I don't see the good news in all that.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:02:39 +0000

If the reverse were occurring and we saw a two month rise of 10 percent in casualties the MSM would loudly trumpet that as significant. And there has been Iraqi political reconciliation, just not the way we imagined. So the MSM is going to sit on its hands because this isn't the narrative they expected and isn't the narrative they wanted. If this continues this will become an interesting narrative in the 2008 elections.

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:33:45 +0000

Reporting on Michael Murphy winning the MoH is an example of the MSM highlighting bad news or good news?

By: 186

186 — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:10:55 +0000

The point is that if there was even 10% rise in violence or deaths the main stream media would be shouting the news from the rooftops let alone if it rose by 70%.

News is News and the MSM won't report the "Good News"

The UN has even noticed the drop in violence.

Medal of Honor winner Michael Murphy is a glaring example of this!

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:06:08 +0000

As WHO points out? ;)

All articles on OTB will be automatically attributed to James by subsequent comments until corrected in the comments by the original author, geez didn't you read the site policies?

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:52:23 +0000

But, as James points out, we shouldn't read too much into it, either.

As WHO points out? ;)

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:43:40 +0000

And an increase shortly after.

Yes, that was my point,DC Loser. Even taking that into account the casualty rate has fallen. We should rejoice over the good news.

But, as James points out, we shouldn't read too much into it, either.

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:27:10 +0000

Don't we usually have a drop around the time of Ramadan?

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:22:52 +0000

I think there's a more important point to be made: that even adjusted for seasonal variance there's been a drop. But you're right on the larger point. There's an old proverb that covers it: don't count your chickens before they're hatched. In my view the even larger point is that the situation in Iraq won't develop according to the needs of the 24 hour news cycle nor according to the demands of the American electorate. My conclusion from that back in 2003 was that it would be impossible to change a whole civilization on a schedule that would fit the U. S. domestic political requirements.